A witness’s relationship to the deceased does not render their testimony unreliable or 'interested' absent specific motives for bias. Minor investigative flaws or procedural omissions by the police do not warrant acquittal when the ocular testimony is found credible and fully corroborated by independent medical evidence.

1. Through the present appeal, the appellant/accused (for brevity, “appellant”) challenges a judgment of conviction dated 11.07.2016 and an order of sentence dated 12.07.2016 passed in Sessions Case No.175 of 2015 titled as “State Vs. Vijay Kumar alias Neetu”, arising out of an FIR No.82 dated 01.08.2015 under Sections 302, 307, 323, 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘1860 Code’) registered at Police Station Longowal, through which, the appellant was convicted under the said sections and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a direction to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- under Section 302 of the said Code and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years; rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 324 of the said Code and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months; and rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 323 of the said Code and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

2. The prosecution case, as unfolded by the final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity, ‘1973 Code’), is that PW1 Tarsem Chand is resident of ward No.9, Patti Longowal. He deals in household works. He used to live with his wife Pushpa Devi, his daughter-in-law Komal and grandson Mansan Goyal. His son Som Kumar was married to the said Komal daughter of Sh. Jagdish Rai resident of Sangrur 15 years ago. They had above-stated son from the said marriage. In the year 2007, the said Som Kumar went missing. His whereabouts were not known till the date of the occurrence in question. Because of the said reason, family members of his daughter-in-law Komal had started raising a dispute with him either to give to her share in the property or to get her remarried. With the consent of both the families, he got his daughter-in-law Komal married to one Subhash Kumar son of Sh. Jethu Ram resident of Cheema. The said Subhash Kumar started living as son of PW1 Tarsem Chand in his house. They were spending life peacefully. On 28.07.2015, a girl was born to the said Komal. To look after her, PW1 Tarsem Chand and his family sent the said Komal to the matrimonial home of Kirna Devi daughter of Tarsem Chand situated at Patti Longowal. On 01.08.2015 at about 2 p.m. Vijay Kumar (appellant), son of Sh. Jagdish Rai resident of Sangrur, real brother of the said Komal came to the house of Tarsem Chand on his motorcycle. The said Tarsem Chand started talking to the appellant in his bedroom and sent his wife Pushpa Devi to kitchen for preparing tea. In the meanwhile, the appellant demanded Rs.2 lakhs from Tarsem Chand then and there. However, he expressed his inability. The appellant got enraged because of such refusal and insisted that he will take the money from Pushpa Devi wife of Tarsem Chand. The appellant then went to the said Pushpa Devi in the kitchen and demanded Rs.2 lakhs from her but she also refused to pay the same. Enraged, the appellant took out a sword like kirch from his waistband (Dabb) and inflicted 7/8 blows thereof in the abdomen of the said Pushpa Devi. Because of such blows, Pushpa Devi died at the spot. Tarsem Chand raised alarm ‘killed-killed’. The appellant in order to kill him also atta